In the bizarre world of climate alarmism, a naturally evolving climate is viewed as a man-made catastrophe, but an evolving political climate is not, as long as it supports the hysteria. Few advocate learning enough about science to separate fact from fiction, because knowledge is considered an impediment to progress.

With the re-election of Barack Obama, his radical followers declared, “This is our time,” and ramped up efforts to transform society back to a simpler period when energy meant horse power and prosperity was a distant dream. The president steered clear of this climate morass, preferring to let his Environmental Protection Agency work “the problem” away from public scrutiny.

There has been a large increase of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases due to emissions resulting from human activity over the past 150 years (although we do not agree that “equivalent CO2” concentration has yet doubled, as claimed by RSL on Slide 46 Global average surface temperature has very probably warmed by about 0.7oC in the same period (RSL Slide 10, or 0.8oC in Slide 4), ), Increasing carbon dioxide alone, and in the absence of climate feedbacks, should cause about 1oC warming for each doubling (RSL Slide 3).

We agree that scientific arguments should be based on physical reasoning and data, without exaggerating either the effects or our certainty (or uncertainty) about them. RSL is right to draw attention to uncertainties in climate change feedbacks e.g. associated with clouds. However, it is wrong to infer from this that we know nothing about these feedbacks. Contemporary science suggests unambiguously that there is a substantial risk that these feedbacks will lead to human-induced surface temperature change considerably larger than 1oC in global average this century and beyond.

Management sets very clear editorial policies, in this case support for a presumed climate ‘consensus’ and directs all their journalists to favor the perspective they want promoted. Some balance may be provided to give the appearance of impartiality, but readers are always reminded what conclusions they should draw. That is why most people sense little difference between the editorial and ‘news’ pages of a newspaper in terms of bias. As to factual content, editorials are sometimes better than news stories, because they are less formula driven and don’t pretend a mythical fairness.

How should the media cover science? First of all, they need to understand a little about it, enough to realize that claims of a ‘consensus’ are completely bogus. The earth is believed round, not because a consensus of scientists says so (or the National Academy of Sciences certifies it as such) but because we can present logic and evidence to prove it. For instance, we might show photos of the earth taken from the moon.

Quite frequently a majority of scientists have been terribly wrong and tried to enforce their views through intimidation of skeptics. When two medical researchers proposed a new theory that ulcers were caused by a bacterium, they were heavily ridiculed by their peers who preferred the older “stress theory.” When these researchers isolated the bacterium and demonstrated its disease potential, opposition melted away, and the researchers were appropriately awarded the Nobel Prize in Medicine. In clear recognition of the very bad behavior of their peers, the Nobel Committee noted the unwarranted and inappropriate opposition they had faced. Responsible news coverage of their efforts would have looked for the all important logic and evidence and avoided the endless attacks from those defending the older ideas. It might also have considered why some scientists vigorously resist new ideas. They have a lot invested in the status quo.

Science is not an exercise in politics and sarcasm. It's an exercise in logic and evidence. There are no ultimate authorities as in other human pursuits, and science is never determined by a popular vote.

As Albert Einstein said: "One man can prove me wrong."

The supremacy of logic and evidence was driven home to me as a graduate student. When I was examining sunspot numbers (the oldest scientific records kept by man dating from Galileo) versus a cosmic-ray index, I noticed that the galactic cosmic rays did not respond immediately to solar changes. The lag suggested that the solar wind carrying solar magnetic fields likely blew far beyond the farthest planets, breaking up only when it was too diffuse to push back the interstellar medium further.

Contrary to many, I argued that the "heliosphere" was enormous. Because scientific journals at the time tolerated renegade ideas, those who reviewed my work allowed it to be published. It met the logic of science and had some supporting evidence.

Two decades later NASA spacecraft reached the edge of the heliosphere far beyond Pluto and radioed the evidence 8 billion miles home. That provided the independent verification so important in science.

The story of environmentalism is generally portrayed as one of citizens triumphing over evil corporate polluters, of public awareness, science, and affluence working together to solve pressing problems. There is no problem so huge or so abstract that we cannot solve it if we put our minds to it And solving these problems yields all sorts of positive side-effects and no drawbacks.

While that may be the perception, it is far from the fact. Public awareness is easily swayed by media campaigns that are little more than propaganda and supported by a press that would rather take sides than present balanced reports. Science is largely bought and paid for by politicians who control the agenda and the outcome.

And our affluence, or what is left of it, is viewed as an inexhaustible source of revenue for whatever fantastic ideas the political class can dream up. Negative consequences of such folly are viewed as so impossible as to be unworthy of discussion.

Albert Einstein spoke for all who view science as a noble profession when he said he was "trying to understand the mind of God."

But I am concerned that many who promote the idea of catastrophic global warming reduce science to a political and economic game. Scare tactics and junk science are used to secure lucrative government contracts.

Consider first an example of what makes science so fascinating. The well-documented observation that the global temperature peaks every summer in July seems unremarkable to those of us living in the Northern Hemisphere.

But it is remarkable when you realize that the Earth's closest approach to the sun, when sunlight is strongest, occurs during the Southern Hemisphere summer in January. It is even more remarkable when you realize that the Earth was significantly warmer 10,000 years ago when its closest approach coincided with the Northern Hemisphere summer.

It is still more remarkable when you realize that we are now close to an orbital configuration for another ice age. The present warm Holocene interglacial period, during which human civilization has flourished, may give way by the end of this millennium to 90,000 years of cold. Climate changes from orbital variations are called Milankovitch Cycles and are confirmed by Antarctic ice core data. Typically, good science is not particularly controversial because it has been tested by the scientific method involving theories validated by observations made by many scientists working independently.